reaction to readings
The readings were very practical and rooted in good common sense concepts. After reading them it appears that sometimes organizations are their own worst enemy.
Internally they don’t always understand the need for good risk communications which in turns can lead to lack of funding to support this effort. The lack of education at the management level of why risk communications is important can also lead to failure of this effort. As a full time employee of the University of Florida I couldn’t help but seem examples of these concepts in my daily work. The Threat Rigid Response (TRR) seems to be a quite popular reaction within the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS). Most reactions stem from a lack of knowledge and understanding of the concept. The three characteristics that need to exist to avoid TRR are a mechanism for upward flow of information, the theory that communication is everyone’s business as opposed to being the job of public relations dept. and having numerous ways for the community to get information about the organizations activities. All three of these concepts are almost non-existent. Imagine how difficult the risk communicator’s job would be in this situation. When it comes to potential role dichotomy we prefer to only have to play the part of the educator, explain, inform and impart knowledge. Many times our audience wants us to be a facilitator and point to solutions, a partner that jointly solves problems and the manager that tells them what to do to help prevent or mitigate the risk. Those roles are not always comfortable for folks in academia.
The bureaucracy of an academic institution lends itself to many layers of an approval process. It is almost impossible to get a response back in a timely manner that wouldn’t somehow spark a reaction of suspicion on the audience’s part. This all fits with the corporate protection requirements but shouldn’t these policies be reviewed form time to time? In academia it appears that there are many gatekeepers in place just to insure the protection layer stands strong.
IFAS is very large and communications internally are not as strong as they need to be. The concept of conflicting organizational requirements comes into play at this point. From one office to the next you may find that each of them has a different way to handle communicating information. Planning for risk communication is not on the top of their list of things to do. Then again insufficient information to establish a plan may exist, therefore, hindering the ability to create a plan.
When it comes to seeing the public as an equal partner that is where IFAS shines.
They have advisory committees established at each of their county offices and research centers around the state. They meet with them often and seek input on issues relating to the needs of the community as well as research needs of local industries. They understand that buy-in from stakeholders is very important to their existence and funding. They are improving at understanding how cultural diversity plays a role in different value systems.
Because IFAS interacts with the public on a daily basis they are clearly aware of many of the constraints fro the audience. Hostility and outrage are a regular part of production agriculture. IFAS many times is called upon to present research on behalf of the producer when dealing with the regulatory arena. We are a science based institution therefore we can experience panic and denial and apathy all in the same day. Science may say a risk is greater than what is perceived by a farmer that has been growing crops for 30 years, apathy is apparent in many instances. We get a double whammy when we are seen as a government agency and a science institution. Many folks find that reason enough to mistrust us.
Principles of risk communication need improvement in IFAS. A pretest can only happen if you have a plan and build enough time into responding in order to do a pretest. Improvements are evident in knowing their audience e and speaking in simpler language.
Listening to concerns of the audience are also improving. It all comes down to continuing to educated key administrators on the campus level as well as in research offices and county offices about the importance to risk and crisis communication.
Internally they don’t always understand the need for good risk communications which in turns can lead to lack of funding to support this effort. The lack of education at the management level of why risk communications is important can also lead to failure of this effort. As a full time employee of the University of Florida I couldn’t help but seem examples of these concepts in my daily work. The Threat Rigid Response (TRR) seems to be a quite popular reaction within the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS). Most reactions stem from a lack of knowledge and understanding of the concept. The three characteristics that need to exist to avoid TRR are a mechanism for upward flow of information, the theory that communication is everyone’s business as opposed to being the job of public relations dept. and having numerous ways for the community to get information about the organizations activities. All three of these concepts are almost non-existent. Imagine how difficult the risk communicator’s job would be in this situation. When it comes to potential role dichotomy we prefer to only have to play the part of the educator, explain, inform and impart knowledge. Many times our audience wants us to be a facilitator and point to solutions, a partner that jointly solves problems and the manager that tells them what to do to help prevent or mitigate the risk. Those roles are not always comfortable for folks in academia.
The bureaucracy of an academic institution lends itself to many layers of an approval process. It is almost impossible to get a response back in a timely manner that wouldn’t somehow spark a reaction of suspicion on the audience’s part. This all fits with the corporate protection requirements but shouldn’t these policies be reviewed form time to time? In academia it appears that there are many gatekeepers in place just to insure the protection layer stands strong.
IFAS is very large and communications internally are not as strong as they need to be. The concept of conflicting organizational requirements comes into play at this point. From one office to the next you may find that each of them has a different way to handle communicating information. Planning for risk communication is not on the top of their list of things to do. Then again insufficient information to establish a plan may exist, therefore, hindering the ability to create a plan.
When it comes to seeing the public as an equal partner that is where IFAS shines.
They have advisory committees established at each of their county offices and research centers around the state. They meet with them often and seek input on issues relating to the needs of the community as well as research needs of local industries. They understand that buy-in from stakeholders is very important to their existence and funding. They are improving at understanding how cultural diversity plays a role in different value systems.
Because IFAS interacts with the public on a daily basis they are clearly aware of many of the constraints fro the audience. Hostility and outrage are a regular part of production agriculture. IFAS many times is called upon to present research on behalf of the producer when dealing with the regulatory arena. We are a science based institution therefore we can experience panic and denial and apathy all in the same day. Science may say a risk is greater than what is perceived by a farmer that has been growing crops for 30 years, apathy is apparent in many instances. We get a double whammy when we are seen as a government agency and a science institution. Many folks find that reason enough to mistrust us.
Principles of risk communication need improvement in IFAS. A pretest can only happen if you have a plan and build enough time into responding in order to do a pretest. Improvements are evident in knowing their audience e and speaking in simpler language.
Listening to concerns of the audience are also improving. It all comes down to continuing to educated key administrators on the campus level as well as in research offices and county offices about the importance to risk and crisis communication.
posted by Liz Felter at
1/15/2007 08:15:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home