Risk Communication - reaction post 1
This week’s chapters made me realize the multi-dimensional nature of risk communication and the different aspects that might influence it. I already knew that risk and crisis communication were complex issues, but both chapters made me aware of the “little details” of risk communication.
Chapter 4 contained information about organizational constraints affecting risk communication. I am interested in reputation management and this chapter was especially interesting because it made me aware of how all the problems that might arise when communication about risks are also crucial for the protection of an organization’s reputation.
The chapter listed all the different organizational constraints a communicator might face. Some of these constraints are: management apathy or hostility, difficult review and approval procedures, corporate protection requirements, and conflicting organizational requirements. These organizational constraints not only concern risk communication, but they also affect the overall reputation of the organization.
If an organization has trouble communicating, than trust, credibility and transparency issues will arise, thus influencing the organization’s reputation negatively. Effective risk communication is important for a strong reputation, especially during times of risk and crisis. Just ignoring a situation, not responding effectively, or corporate arrogance instead of open and honest communication in times of risk or crisis might damage the credibility of an organization, creating long-term damage on the organization’s reputation.
There was also another point I found interesting in chapter 4. I thought that two constraints: potential roles dichotomy and the unwillingness to see the public as an equal partner were closely related and they made me aware of the importance of the emotional aspect of risk communication.
A dichotomy of roles is created when “the audience expects a different role from the one the organization is willing to play” (Lundgren and McMakin, 2004, 52). And when audiences come across a role dichotomy they feel anger, hostility and confusion about the message.
The example in the book (pg. 52) mentions a situation where a mother calls a risk communicator (local agency communicating about air quality issues) and when she is not satisfied with the response she is getting, she finally asks: “You sound like a mother, would you let your child back into the house?” (52). The response suggested in the book is a calm, rational response without involving emotions: “Providing advice as a mother could even have resulted in legal action later”(52). I think that even though the respondent doesn’t have to respond like they are friends, I think that the response should involve some emotion.
It might be hard to define your role as a communicator is the person you are trying to talk to is acting very emotionally. So a potential role dichotomy might be unavoidable.
The examples provided in chapter 4 all contain very rational responses, which might not always be possible. Acting calm and rational might be the absolutely right thing to do, but it might not be the best response at all times.
I think that risk and crisis communicators, especially when health and safety issues are involved, need to also consider the emotions of the people they are communicating with. You have to realize that people who are trying to gain some more information are in risk and they might not always be rational, and a cold face or tone might make them even more hostile. The authors agree with this point and they state “risk communication, however, cannot be effective unless it considers the emotions, beliefs and political leanings of the audience”. Identifying with your audience and trying to understand their emotions might be a key to effective risk communication.
Chapter 4 contained information about organizational constraints affecting risk communication. I am interested in reputation management and this chapter was especially interesting because it made me aware of how all the problems that might arise when communication about risks are also crucial for the protection of an organization’s reputation.
The chapter listed all the different organizational constraints a communicator might face. Some of these constraints are: management apathy or hostility, difficult review and approval procedures, corporate protection requirements, and conflicting organizational requirements. These organizational constraints not only concern risk communication, but they also affect the overall reputation of the organization.
If an organization has trouble communicating, than trust, credibility and transparency issues will arise, thus influencing the organization’s reputation negatively. Effective risk communication is important for a strong reputation, especially during times of risk and crisis. Just ignoring a situation, not responding effectively, or corporate arrogance instead of open and honest communication in times of risk or crisis might damage the credibility of an organization, creating long-term damage on the organization’s reputation.
There was also another point I found interesting in chapter 4. I thought that two constraints: potential roles dichotomy and the unwillingness to see the public as an equal partner were closely related and they made me aware of the importance of the emotional aspect of risk communication.
A dichotomy of roles is created when “the audience expects a different role from the one the organization is willing to play” (Lundgren and McMakin, 2004, 52). And when audiences come across a role dichotomy they feel anger, hostility and confusion about the message.
The example in the book (pg. 52) mentions a situation where a mother calls a risk communicator (local agency communicating about air quality issues) and when she is not satisfied with the response she is getting, she finally asks: “You sound like a mother, would you let your child back into the house?” (52). The response suggested in the book is a calm, rational response without involving emotions: “Providing advice as a mother could even have resulted in legal action later”(52). I think that even though the respondent doesn’t have to respond like they are friends, I think that the response should involve some emotion.
It might be hard to define your role as a communicator is the person you are trying to talk to is acting very emotionally. So a potential role dichotomy might be unavoidable.
The examples provided in chapter 4 all contain very rational responses, which might not always be possible. Acting calm and rational might be the absolutely right thing to do, but it might not be the best response at all times.
I think that risk and crisis communicators, especially when health and safety issues are involved, need to also consider the emotions of the people they are communicating with. You have to realize that people who are trying to gain some more information are in risk and they might not always be rational, and a cold face or tone might make them even more hostile. The authors agree with this point and they state “risk communication, however, cannot be effective unless it considers the emotions, beliefs and political leanings of the audience”. Identifying with your audience and trying to understand their emotions might be a key to effective risk communication.
posted by emelo at
1/15/2007 08:14:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home