Section 19. Handling Crises in Communication

• What is communication?

• What do communication problems look like?

• How do you deal with communication problems?

• Handling crises in communication

 

 

Sometimes, difficult communication situations arise. These can range from no reporters showing up to your press conference to a large group protesting your effort, inaccurate information spreading online, or a serious organizational mistake suddenly receiving public attention. No matter what the issue, dealing with communication problems and crises takes preparation. In this section, we'll look at different types of communication problems, how to identify them, and how to handle them in the best interests of your organization, initiative, and community.

What is communication?

When we talk about communication, we're mainly referring to the process of sharing ideas and information about your initiative throughout the community. Although doing this well may involve looking at communication within your organization, the communication we're concerned with here is between you and the community. This might be direct -- information such as flyers, email, websites, social media, meetings, or ads that goes from your organization to the community -- or indirect, such as information that reaches people through news coverage, community partners, or other messengers.

• Communication is not one-sided. You can distribute a great deal of information, but if people don't understand it, don't trust it, or interpret it differently than you intended, the communication may not accomplish its purpose. Good communicators listen as well as speak. They seek feedback from the people they hope to reach and try to understand their questions, concerns, experiences, and information needs.
• Communication involves more than words. It can include body language and tone of voice, as well as the attitude and general tone projected through speech, writing, images, actions, and organizational decisions. An organization should make sure that the people and materials representing it communicate in ways that are respectful, accessible, and welcoming.
• People may communicate and interpret messages in different ways. Language, cultural background, lived experience, accessibility needs, familiarity with an issue, and perceptions of trust and power can all influence how communication is received. Don't assume that everyone in a demographic or cultural group communicates alike. Know your audience by listening to community members and learning how they prefer to receive and discuss information.

To communicate effectively, organizations have to take all of these ideas into account.

What do communication problems look like?

There are many different kinds of problems that can arise when you're trying to let the community or a particular group know who you are, what you're doing, and why it matters. Some problems have to do with how you present your message, and others involve how people perceive your organization, your actions, or the issue itself. Problems may also arise when inaccurate information spreads through news media, social media, community networks, or other channels. Because these situations are different, they call for different responses. In this part of the section, we look at some of the problems you might face. Later on, we offer some ways to deal with them.

Common communication problems:

• Your message isn't reaching the people you hope to reach. For some reason, the community members you're trying to reach aren't hearing about you or aren't encountering the information in places or formats they use.
• People don't understand or misunderstand your message. People may not understand what you're trying to say, may interpret it differently than you intended, or may not realize that the information is relevant to them. A misunderstanding can sometimes develop into a larger problem if people believe your message means something you did not intend.
• People disagree with your message or find some aspect of it harmful or offensive. The difference may be political or philosophical, or your wording, images, examples, or framing may have caused concern. In any case, people are telling you that something about your message or position needs attention.

• People dislike or distrust your organization and therefore question your message before they have fully heard it. The disagreement may be political, philosophical, historical, or rooted in previous experiences with your organization or similar institutions. Whatever the reason, existing distrust can shape how new information is interpreted.

• Your message has been garbled or misrepresented in the media or through other communication channels. This can result from unclear information from your organization, an honest reporting error, incomplete context, rapidly changing information, inaccurate social media posts, or intentional misinformation. Whatever the cause, you may have to address the resulting confusion.

Sometimes, the issue is simply one of emphasis. In an article about a Read-a-thon being run by an adult literacy organization, the local paper highlighted a staff member's comparison between services addressing immediate needs, such as shelters and emergency assistance, and services focused on longer-term opportunities, such as adult literacy. Other human service organizations understandably interpreted the comment as dismissing the importance of immediate support. Resolving the situation required phone calls and letters explaining that the organization valued both immediate assistance and longer-term opportunities and that the original wording had not communicated that clearly. The experience illustrates how a brief quotation or framing choice can create an impression different from what the speaker intended.

• You make an unfortunate error that has larger consequences.

How do you deal with communication problems?

Now that you have some idea of what kinds of problems you could run into, you need to look at some ways to address them. Different problems require different solutions. But there are also overall guidelines that can help in dealing with communication difficulties -- and with communication more generally.

General guidelines for dealing with communication problems.

• First, try to find out exactly what the problem is. Why is a particular group angry with you? What do they believe the issue is? What, specifically, are people not understanding about your message? What information are they receiving from other sources? Don't be afraid to ask. Listening directly to affected community members can help you distinguish between a misunderstanding, a legitimate criticism, misinformation, and a deeper disagreement.
• Avoid inflammatory rhetoric, and be honest about what you know, what you believe, and what remains uncertain. Don't change the stated intent of your message merely to quiet criticism if your actual position hasn't changed. At the same time, be willing to change wording, practices, or even decisions when new information or valid criticism shows that a change is justified. Think through how any change relates to your mission and responsibilities before making it.

• Try to communicate with people who are angry with, concerned about, or opposed to what you're doing. Listen carefully to what they have to say and take legitimate concerns seriously. Some criticisms may have merit, or you may be able to correct a misunderstanding or address a concern without abandoning your purpose. Even when disagreement remains, people should have a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
• Be as flexible as possible without abandoning your mission or responsibilities. Be willing to rethink ways of doing or saying things and to look for solutions that include more people when those changes improve the work.
• Treat everyone with respect. Try to understand why people hold the positions they do, even when you strongly disagree. Respect doesn't require agreement, but it can keep communication open and reduce unnecessary conflict.
• Take responsibility and apologize when the error or harm is yours. Explain what happened as accurately as you can, correct the problem, and describe what you're doing to reduce the chance of it happening again. Don't shift blame simply to protect the organization's image.
• Keep providing clear, accurate information through the channels people actually use. During a communication problem, people may hear conflicting versions of events. Make your information easy to find, correct outdated information promptly, acknowledge what remains unknown, and provide updates as the situation changes.

Dealing with specific communication problems.

Your message isn't reaching the people you hope to reach. Examine your language, assumptions, accessibility, communication channels, and the circumstances of the people you're trying to reach. Checking directly with community members about what is likely to work -- and then using what you learn -- may quickly reveal where the problem lies.

• Are you using the language or languages people actually use and prefer? Is the information written in clear, plain language appropriate to the audience's literacy and familiarity with the topic? Are you providing translated, audio, visual, large-print, captioned, or other accessible formats when they are needed?
• Are you using ways of getting the word out that people are likely to notice and trust?
• What communication channels do the people you're trying to reach actually use? What do they read, watch, listen to, follow, or discuss? Which community members or organizations do they trust? Where are they likely to encounter information?

When a colleague and I had little success attracting people to our adult literacy program through newspaper ads and text-heavy brochures, we realized that we needed more accessible ways to communicate. Along with word-of-mouth outreach through human service organizations and other community partners, we started using flyers with only a few simple words: "Need help with reading, writing, GED? Call..." We included tear-off phone numbers so people wouldn't have to write anything down. Then we thought more carefully about where potential participants already spent time. In addition to human service offices, supermarkets, and store windows, we placed flyers -- with permission -- in laundromats, restaurants, and other community locations and talked with people who regularly interacted with residents. Soon, more potential students began finding their way to the program. We had made the language easier to use, made responding simpler, and put the message in places where people were more likely to encounter it.

People don't understand -- or misunderstand -- your message. You've somehow missed the mark. What are you doing wrong, and how can you fix it?

• Once again, you need to examine your language and assumptions. Are you using unfamiliar terminology or assuming background knowledge that readers or listeners may not have?
• Find out what people think you're saying. A single word, image, example, or missing piece of context may be changing or confusing the message. If you can identify it, the problem may be easier to correct.
• Examine the message itself. Do you understand clearly what you're trying to communicate? If not, work through the issue until you can state it in terms people can understand.
• Restate the message more clearly, and test the revised version with people who represent the intended audience to make sure they understand what you mean.
• If your wording created confusion or harm, acknowledge that and clarify what you intended. An apology is appropriate when the organization's communication caused a problem, not merely because other people interpreted the message differently than you hoped.

People disagree with your message or find it offensive in some way. Disagreement can take a number of forms, and it's important to know exactly what you're dealing with.

• Are objections based on political or philosophical differences about your basic premise, or are they about the wording or presentation of your message? Do community members believe your message demeans or unfairly blames a group, misstates an issue, or leaves out important context? Can the message be improved in response to those concerns?
• Try to establish communication with those who disagree with you. Can you respond to their concerns without compromising your goals or principles? What, if any, are your points of agreement? Can you work together in some areas even if disagreement remains elsewhere? Are you willing to continue the conversation?
• Are you at least partially in the wrong? Are some criticisms valid? Is a public or private correction, apology, or retraction appropriate?
• What are the consequences of continued disagreement? Can you agree to disagree in a civil way, and would that allow your organization and others to continue working productively?
• If your differences are not resolvable, make sure your point of view is stated clearly and accurately. Trusted community members, relevant experts, or other credible messengers may help explain the position when they genuinely understand and support it. Continue to treat people who hold differing perspectives with respect, and make sure factual claims made by your organization can be supported.
• If dialogue doesn't resolve the disagreement, you may decide to use other appropriate advocacy strategies, such as public testimony, organizing, demonstrations, petitions, or policy advocacy. Make sure those actions are lawful, safe, consistent with your values, and grounded in accurate information.
• Continue making accurate information available to the people you hope to reach, but don't confuse persistence with overwhelming people who have clearly asked not to receive further communication.

In a small community, a grassroots group formed to question the proposed construction of a plant that would reprocess heavy metals. Members were concerned about safety and about what the community would actually gain if the plant opened. Many community leaders, who believed the plant could bring needed tax revenue and jobs, initially refused to engage with the group and questioned whether it represented the community. The group persisted by holding public meetings, attending meetings organized by others, gathering information, and continuing to ask for dialogue. Eventually, members of the grassroots group were included in a panel studying the proposal.

Four group members researched other plants operated by the company and found information raising questions about employment promises, wages, and safety. The company eventually withdrew its proposal, and the plant was not built. Whatever one's position on the proposed facility, the example illustrates the value of gathering evidence, participating consistently in public processes, and keeping communication open rather than relying only on accusations or assumptions.

People dislike or distrust your organization and therefore question what they think your message is, even if they haven't actually heard the message itself.

How you deal with this kind of problem depends upon why the problem exists. If people misunderstand what your group does or stands for, clear information may help. If a group feels attacked by what you're saying or trying to do, that's a different issue. If your organization is associated with religious, political, social, or cultural values that some community members strongly reject, there may be genuine disagreement that better wording alone cannot resolve. People may also encounter inaccurate versions of your position through rumors, social media, public statements, or other sources.

• Try to address concerns honestly without misrepresenting your ideas. If people accurately understand your position and still disagree with it, acknowledge the disagreement and look for areas where constructive communication or cooperation may still be possible.
• If your message or your organization is being misrepresented, respond promptly with accurate information through the channels most likely to reach the affected audience. That might include news media, community meetings, your website, social media, email, trusted partners, or direct outreach. Avoid personal attacks. Correct the claim, provide evidence or context, and answer reasonable questions.
• Make accurate information easy to find and continue monitoring whether significant misinformation or unanswered questions are circulating. Use channels and messengers that the affected community actually trusts.

Your message has been garbled or misrepresented in the media. There are really two strategies here: first, reduce the chance that it happens in the first place; and second, correct significant errors if they occur despite your efforts.

• Prevention involves building professional relationships with journalists who cover your community or issue and making reliable information easy to obtain. Provide clear key facts, supporting materials, relevant context, and knowledgeable people who can answer questions. Respond promptly to reasonable media requests when possible. The goal isn't to find reporters who are personally sympathetic to you, but to become a reliable source whose information journalists can trust and verify.
• If an important error appears despite your efforts, contact the reporter or outlet promptly and explain specifically what is inaccurate. Depending on the circumstances, a correction request, clarification, public statement, letter to the editor, updated webpage, or other communication may be appropriate.
• If misleading information continues or the outlet does not correct a significant error, use other credible communication channels to make accurate information available to the people who need it.

You make an unfortunate error that has larger consequences. In this circumstance, there are several things you need to do.

• Correct the error as quickly as reasonably possible through the channels where the inaccurate information appeared and the channels most likely to reach affected people. Make the correction clear rather than quietly replacing the original information without acknowledging the mistake when the error may already have caused confusion.
• Take responsibility for the part of the error that was yours and apologize clearly when people were inconvenienced, misled, harmed, or reasonably concerned. Explain what happened, what the correct information is, and what you're doing about it.
• Match your tone to the seriousness of the situation. Light humor may be acceptable for a harmless mistake if affected people are likely to see it that way, but don't make light of errors involving safety, discrimination, privacy, trauma, financial loss, or other serious consequences.

Handling crises in communication

What's the difference between a problem and a crisis?

So far, we've been talking about communication problems. Some may be very serious, but they can often be handled through normal organizational communication. A crisis is a situation that creates substantial and immediate risk to people, services, trust, operations, funding, reputation, legal responsibilities, or the organization's ability to continue its work and therefore requires a coordinated response.

A communication crisis may involve a serious incident connected to the organization, a safety problem, misconduct, a privacy or data breach, rapidly spreading misinformation, a major service failure, a public controversy, or another development that creates intense concern and a need for timely information. During a crisis, facts may change quickly. The organization may not know everything at first, but it still needs to communicate what is known, what is not yet known, what is being done, and when people can expect additional information.

Planning for a crisis in communication

You're the Director of an organization that's dependent on the trust of the community. It's 8:00 on a Monday morning. You've come in early to get some work done, and you're surprised to hear the phone ring. It's a reporter from a large regional news outlet asking questions about a former staff member who has been accused of a serious crime. At the same time, posts about the situation are beginning to circulate online. Would you know who should respond, what information can be shared, whom inside the organization needs to know, and how you will communicate as the situation develops?

The best time to plan for a communication crisis is before one happens. Organizations should identify in advance who will coordinate the response, who is authorized to speak publicly, how accurate information will be verified and approved, how staff and partners will receive updates, what communication channels will be used, and how urgent situations will be handled outside normal working hours. The plan should be easy for the people responsible for crisis response to access and should be reviewed and updated periodically.

• Determine the seriousness of the situation. What has happened? Who may be affected? Are there immediate health, safety, privacy, operational, legal, or other risks? What information is verified, and what is still unknown? What does the organization need to do now to protect people and continue essential work?
• Prepare key facts, likely questions and answers, and supporting information. State what you know and what you don't know. Don't speculate to fill information gaps. Explain what the organization is doing, what affected people should do when action is needed, and when the next update will be provided.
• Notify the people who need to know. Depending on the situation, this may include board members, staff, participants, funders, partners, public agencies, insurers, legal counsel, or others with an important role or legitimate need for information. Whenever possible, people directly affected by the crisis should receive important information from the organization rather than first encountering it through rumors or news coverage.
• Designate a spokesperson or coordinated spokesperson team. This helps reduce contradictory information and makes it clear where reporters and community members should go for updates. Depending on the crisis, one person may not have all the needed expertise, so subject-matter experts or organizational leaders may also need to speak. Everyone communicating publicly should work from the same verified facts.
  • Respond promptly to media requests when possible. If privacy, safety, legal, personnel, or investigative considerations limit what you can say, explain that appropriately rather than speculating or disclosing information you should not share.
  • Return reporters' calls or messages in time for their deadlines when possible, even if the update is simply that information is still being verified and you will provide more when it is available.
  • Identify the most important verified information you need people to understand. Answer questions directly and return to those key points when they are relevant rather than ignoring the question in order to repeat a prepared message.
  • Ask enough about the reporter's question and deadline to understand what information they need and what aspect of the situation they are covering.
  • Assume that anything you say to a reporter may become public unless you and the reporter have clearly agreed to different ground rules in advance. If you have questions about whether a conversation is on the record, establish that before sharing information.
  • If you don't understand a question, ask the reporter to clarify it.
  • If you don't know the answer, say so. If appropriate, offer to verify the information and follow up.
  • When useful, connect reporters with independent experts, community partners, or other people with relevant knowledge or experience who have agreed to speak.
  • If you cannot answer a question, briefly explain why when you can. Avoid guessing, disclosing protected information, or filling silence with information that has not been verified.
  • Ask when the story is expected to appear and how the reporter can be reached if you need to provide a correction or additional verified information before publication.
• Oversee the crisis management process. Keep the response team informed, make sure responsibilities are clear, monitor news coverage and relevant online discussion, correct significant misinformation, and adjust communication as new facts become available.
• After the immediate crisis has been resolved, update the people affected. If an organizational problem was corrected, explain what changed when appropriate. People may continue to have questions after media attention has faded.
• Don't forget that you have to deal with the issue within the organization as well as outside of it. Staff, volunteers, board members, and participants may also be affected by a crisis. They need accurate information, opportunities to ask questions, and appropriate support. A serious incident may require organizational learning and changes in policy or practice rather than simply waiting for public attention to disappear.
• Remember to thank the people and partners who helped you respond to the situation.

Dealing with a typical crisis

A crisis management plan like the one above can help an enormous amount, but it isn't all that's needed. If we look at a specific situation, some other necessary elements come to light.

Someone connected to your organization publicly says or does something that causes serious concern or harm in the community. This could involve illegal activity, discriminatory or threatening remarks, misconduct, a serious violation of organizational policy, or another action that conflicts with the organization's responsibilities and values. The person might be a participant, staff member, Board member, volunteer, or someone else connected with the organization. Your response should depend on the facts, the person's role, the seriousness of the conduct, the harm caused, and the organization's responsibilities.

• If the situation involves communication or conduct that clearly conflicts with the organization's policies or values, state that accurately and promptly. Don't make claims about what happened before the relevant facts have been established.
• Explain the organization's actual policy, values, or position and what people can expect the organization to do next.
• Take the situation seriously and follow appropriate organizational procedures. If personnel, disciplinary, legal, or investigative processes are involved, be transparent about the process where possible without disclosing private or protected information. Don't promise a particular outcome before the facts have been reviewed.
• Apologize to the people who were harmed or affected when the organization bears responsibility, and make the apology meaningful by pairing it with appropriate corrective action.

In Summary

The best way to deal with many communication problems and crises is to prepare before they happen. Since prevention isn't always possible, when you're faced with a problem or crisis, it's important to remember:

• Identify the problem as clearly as possible and distinguish verified facts from assumptions or rumors.
• Listen to the people affected by the issue and to people who disagree with you. Ask about their concerns, information needs, and understanding of your message. Look for common ground where it exists without ignoring genuine disagreement.
• Be honest, accurate, and transparent about what you know and what you don't know. Be flexible when change is justified without abandoning your mission or responsibilities.
• Treat people with respect and communicate with empathy, particularly when they are affected by harm, uncertainty, or fear.
• Take responsibility and apologize when the error or responsibility is yours, and explain what you're doing to address the problem.
• Keep providing clear, timely information through the channels people use. Correct significant inaccuracies, acknowledge uncertainty, and update people when the facts change.

Communication problems and crises can be difficult and sometimes damaging, but good preparation, accurate information, empathy, accountability, and consistent follow-through can help an organization respond responsibly and preserve or rebuild trust. A crisis may also reveal weaknesses in policies, relationships, or communication systems that need improvement. The goal is not simply to protect the organization's image, but to respond to the situation in a way that serves the people affected and strengthens the organization's ability to carry out its work responsibly.