The Game Plan: Determining the Purpose and Objectives

I have the tough job of following up Wes, but someone has to do it. I too, decided that a fun graphic was necessary to include in this post. Chapter seven was my assignment, and it was about determining purpose and objectives of risk communication. In other words, a game plan needs to be decided on, to define the purpose and objectives or the organization’s risk plan.

Two variables need to be taken into account when developing a risk communication plan according to Lundgren and McMakin, which are the purpose, and the objective. The purpose answers the “why” questions, and the objectives answer the “how” questions (2006). For example, if we were hypothetically trying to communicate the risk of drug use to high school students, we would need to answer these questions first. Why do we want to communicate the risk of drug use among this population? Well, there would be a plethora of answers for this question. Then, how are we going to get these high schoolers to listen to our message? How will we be able to measure our success?

Then, the text suggests that the answers that your group may formulate and come to a formal agreement about what you decide. This gets the group on the same page, as well as lets the upper management the game plan. But before all of this can be accomplished, the organization must consider several factors that influence the purpose and objectives that are set-up.

Factor # 1: Legal Issues

We read about the laws in chapter 3 that may influence the objectives. Legal requirements are obviously the first place to start, because if the organization does not comply with these standards it is not going very far. The text points out “many government agencies have policies regarding how risk communication will be conducted or how the public will be involved in risk management decisions” (p. 116).

Factor #2: Organizational Requirements

Now that the legal issues are taken care of, the risk management team must also make sure that they are in compliance with their own organization’s standards and policies. The text states, “you need to consider your own organization’s requirements and policies regarding the communication of risk, the involvement of the public, the release of information, and the development of communication materials and processes in general. The policies may be formal, or they may be in the form of tradition” (p. 117). Those in the class familiar with public relations theory will notice that this parallels “Grand Strategy” thinking. This is that the specific campaign strategy is in step with the organization as a whole’s mission, values, and goals.

Factor #3: The Risk Itself

Determining the communication type is important to this process. If you remember back to the beginning of the semester when we discussed care communication, consensus communication, and crisis communication, and it must be determined what kind of communication is most appropriately used.

The newness and the visibility of the risk must also be addressed. According to the text,

“If the risk is relatively new and not very visible, you will have to first
raise awareness before you can communicate more technical information, encourage
behavior changes, or build consensus. If the risk is something that has
been discussed for years and has been very visible for some time, the audience
may be apathetic, and you have to find new ways to awaken audience interest and
concern. […] If this risk is relatively new and highly visible, you may
have to deal with fear and hostility before effective risk communication can
take place. Begin by acknowledging and addressing audience concerns so
that they can move beyond the hostility to understanding the risk itself” (p.
119-120).

The factor in which the risk is new and highly visible reminds me of when the 9-11 attacks occurred. All of a sudden the U.S. had a heightened sense of terrorist risk because of the crises that took place. This was obviously highly visible, and did produce fear in the minds and hearts of most Americans. After we felt more educated, and were more protected in airports and increased security at large gatherings, we calmed down and understood the risk itself. Now this risk is part of our everyday lives, but probably do not think about it nearly as much as we did in 2001-2002.

Factor #4: Audience Requirements

The book acknowledges that this may “be the most important, because the audience’s needs and concerns heavily affect any type of risk communication. Therefore, what the audience wants from you should be among the first things you consider in determining your purpose and objectives” (p. 120). Because this is so important, chapter eight is completely devoted to it. I’m sure that our classmates will do a fabulous job explaining it to us!

Who the heck is a stakeholder anyway?

Wes Jamison PUR 6934 Reaction blog #3 Lundgren and McMakin chapter 17

Chapter 17 is perhaps the most useful chapter so far in that it not only gives practical considerations regarding stakeholder participation, but also delves into some more theoretical issues like conflict management and remediation. Whether in the form of the tables at the end of the chapter or the preceding discussion, Lundgren and McMakin make a rather compelling case for stakeholder inclusion in risk management and communication.
One of the more obvious and prescient comments regards the stage at which companies practice stakeholder inclusion: “Stakeholder participation is most effective when key choices concerning the risk have yet to be made. Once an organization is locked on a course of action, participation opportunities dwindle to those that will educate the audience” (pp. 301). Indeed, stakeholder inclusion early in processes often times has historically ameliorated potential critics, and at least placated stakeholders that claim to be affected by the risk. It also functions within the context of Grunig’s Excellence Model in that organizations first scan their environment, engage in two-way symmetric communications and seek to co-orientate regarding the risks, and then if a stakeholder acts in bad faith, is disingenuous, or is otherwise intransigent regarding co-orientation (“they just won’t compromise!”), then the organization can ethically disengage from that stakeholder, monitor the stakeholder’s actions, advocate its own position without reference to the estranged stakeholder, and if needed attack the estranged stakeholder’s credibility or narrative.
The authors note that many stakeholder participation programs fail because of a lack of early, consistent and sustained inclusion. Their explicit and implicit list of reasons behind such lack of inclusion include organizational lack of commitment to inclusion, the lack of planning, ad litigation issues. After all, transparency may work with good faith actors, but NGOs, citizens groups, and lawyers are notorious in corporate circles for acting in bad faith and with less-than-sterling integrity.
They also note that the stakeholders themselves incur certain requirements for success: the size and number of potential participants, the level of interest among those groups, and their willingness to compromise and co-orientate. Each of these findings is valuable and provides insight for the practitioner.
On a more theoretical note, the authors once again “front-load” their article with implicit value assumptions that may or may not be true. For instance, the list beginning on pp.305 that lays out organizational core values that lead to potentially successful participation seems naïve and Pollyannaish--- e.g. “the public should have a say in decisions about actions that affect their lives” carries with it a series of uniquely western assumptions about individual autonomy and individuation from the collective social structures within which all people exist, and those assumptions themselves are under-girded by humanist presuppositions about atomized self-actualization. In other words, the authors take it as a given that all cultures, or even all parties within our culture, believe in either the substantive or normative basis of that statement. It almost goes without saying that successful authoritarian and totalitarian regimes throughout history have operated by different assumptions. Further, the authors never qualify their statements: why should people have a say, why should there be any promise that input will be listened to, why should all participants be given voice, and why should the company even care? The authors beg the harder issues that would provide guidance for practitioners “on the margins,” that is to say, in difficult cases that don’t fit their typology.
More problematic is the assumption mirrored throughout the risk communication literature, derived from Grunig and running through Susskind and all other gatekeepers in the discipline, that stakeholders are good faith actors rather than Machiavellian self-interested pragmatists! It is indeed interesting that NGOs and non-corporate entities fail the same criteria-based test that the authors place upon corporations, e.g. do the Sierra Club, Humane Society of the United States, National Rifle Association, or the American Association of Retired People actually practice the authors’ proposed criteria? Does any other number of entities divulge information, seek coorientation, and implement mutual decision making?
On a positive note, the authors’ discussion of techniques for gathering and evaluating participation were concise enough to be applicable and general enough not to be jargon. Likewise, their review of various techniques from public hearings to focus groups to self-help groups to workshops proved to be very practical and complete. Interestingly, the idea of advisory groups are proving very popular among industry groups, but not because those groups are altruistic or other-directed. Instead, industry groups and corporations have discovered a truism from the crisis communications literature that having advisory groups in place, when coupled with credible best management practices endorsed by the advisory group, provides a veil of protection when a crisis hits. In effect, companies or industry groups that are attacked can point to their advisory board’s support and endorsement, can point to their programmatic emphasis on “accepted” best practices, and can thus avoid blame attribution. To put it another way, the crisis communications literature notes that blame attribution is real, and that entities can pass the buck of blame by labeling sources of the crisis as “aberrations and deviants” from their best practices, and in so doing insulate themselves from blame. When the crap hits the fan, having an advisory board in place (preferably constituted with acknowledged experts coupled with high-profile social activists) that has endorsed the industry’s commitment to best practices does wonders to shift blame; somebody’s got to get pushed under the bus, and advisory boards allow ready outlets for guilt transferal. And yet another interesting outcome of advisory boards is the co-optation of dissent; the political science literature is rife with references to the success of bleeding off dissent by channeling it and shunting it into “process.” As far back as Federalist #10 and Federalist #51, political thinkers have noted that processes that confer legitimacy also bleed off passion, and they indeed co-opt radical change in favor of reform minded status quo ante.
Lastly, the authors could have discussed two additional and relatively current conundrums regarding stakeholder inclusion: inclusion undermines real and legitimate personal and collective opposition to aberrant ideas in favor of pragmatism, and the emerging difficulty of identifying who, exactly, is a stakeholder. Indeed, the authors tacitly accept philosophical pragmatism as the raison d’etre of business, and by advocating that all voices are initially welcome they place corporatist and capitalist ideals at the fore. As much as western intellectuals cringe at the idea, not all value systems, not all voices, are equally valid, and indeed some are evil and immoral. As Peter Berger pointed out in The Homeless Mind and The Sacred Canopy, individuals are profoundly impacted when required to forego their value absolutes (and we all have them) in favor of a creeping and insipid subjective pluralism that supports capitalism. In other words, if the reason for inclusion merely rests upon business success, then employees with very real and deeply felt values should not be required to practice cognitive inclusion involving risk. Should NARAL employees be required to co-orientate with Pro-Life advocates? The very act of doing so, the very requirement to “value all voices” carries enormous cognitive consequence, for proximity to opposing values not only may open one’s mind but also cause anomie and social dysfunction.
Similarly, practitioners are familiar with the NIMBY syndrome. Yet, in the post-modern age, when new media are coupled to social fragmentation and subsequent realignment into digital communities and cognitive ghettos, when social alignment is no longer predicated upon proximity but rather centers around information communities of meaning, who exactly are the stakeholders? What does stakeholder inclusion mean? When the not-in-my-backyard syndrome transmogrifies into the NIYBYE syndrome, e.g. “not-in-your-backyard-either!”, when the old political saw “Think Global, Act Local,” becomes “Think Local, Act Global,” when activists are able to mobilize trans-nationally to oppose practices for ideological reasons, there are a whole other set of contingencies for the practitioner to consider.

Love steak? Try loving your stakeholders.

Get it? Oh man, I love a good cartoon. This is from Community Cultural Development in Australia.

I liked Emelo's photo idea and I like Turkish food a lot, even though I can’t find any microwave-friendly recipes ;). Thanks for sharing those examples of risk perceptions in Turkey! I hope you don’t mind me stealing your photo lead-in idea.

This chapter addressed many of my concerns in regards to getting the community involved in risk assessment and risk communication. The author addresses one issue in the very beginning that never crossed my mind: "Stakeholder participation is most effective when key choices have yet to be made. Once an organization is locked on a course of action, participation opportunities dwindle to those that will educate the audience" (p. 301). Stakeholder participation can be, like OT said, a buzzword. I imagine that for some organizations, SP (as I’ll fondly refer to it from here on out) is an afterthought, because it means relinquishing control of something that could adversely affect the organization’s credibility and sustainability. From my own control-freak perspective, putting something as important as risk analysis and communication into the hands of John Q. Public makes me balk at the seemingly noble idea of SP.

The authors offer advice on communicating compelling reasons for SP for decision-makers. I especially think that having a list of cases where effective SP make for more effective risk management decision (p. 303 lists some studies). Business-minded directors/managers usually want proof in numbers or in previous cases. However, I think the risk communications specialist would also need to be prepared to relate the cases to current issues facing the organization and point out the similarities between the organizations.

Once the powers-that-be in the organization are open to SP, the tricky part becomes identifying who, where, and how. And for the zealous risk communicators, also accepting that you can not be everything to everyone if your stakeholders are “widely distributed and encompass a number of diverse constituencies, each with its own perception of the risk and your organization” (p.304).

The bulk of the chapter (p. 306-328) focuses on guidelines for specific types of stakeholder participation activities and on p. 330-331 you will find Table17-1 and 17-2 which offer the gist of each of these activities. I would like to comment on a few:

Formal Hearings: Yep, we were right, these are pretty much useless except when the stakeholders are diverse and encompass many segments.

Self-help groups: I looked twice too when I read this one. I never thought of these as risk communication, but of course they are! They’re a type of “group interaction” that is typically very specific in order to reduce personal risky behaviors.

Focus groups: My personal favorite! These are appropriate for really listening to the stakeholders to discover their risk perceptions, preferred modes of communication, and much more. Most importantly, “make sure you act on what you hear” (p.313). I think that is also the key to building credibility, reducing hostility, and securing public participation in the future.

Workshops: These are more educational than participatory. This seems like an appropriate step to take after conducting focus groups since focus groups are essentially stakeholders communicating to the organization and workshops are the organization communicating to the stakeholders. The focus groups would provide the information the organization needs to conduct an effective workshop.

Chapter 17: Stakeholder Participation

Stakeholder participation has in recent years become a buzz word in the same way that 'democracy' or 'gender' have. This is partly due to stakeholders’ demands for a meaningful and increased participation in initiatives that directly and sometimes indirectly affects them. Most governments have also made stakeholder participation a legislative requirement. Occurrence and recurrence of notable risk events has also added to the quest for stakeholder participation (Kasperson, 1986). Lundgren & McMakin (2004) noted that while “many organization have realized that it is a good business practice to keep communities and interested parties aware of potential risks, risk communication is still often conducted as a result of law, regulation, or other government inducement” (p. 29).

The detailed Chapter 17, dealing with stakeholder participation is addressed to a number of issues relevant to ensuring effective and genuine stakeholder participation. The chapter outlines organizational and stakeholder requirements and guidelines for undertaking stakeholder participation activities. What simplifies the chapter the most is the checklist and summary tables provided in pages 329 – 333. I find the checklist to be very pragmatic, handy and useful for the risk communicator.

The dilemma with most organizations as far as stakeholder participation is concerned is fear to be marginalized by stakeholders and regulatory agencies if stakeholder participation is overlooked. I trust that if it wasn’t because of the legal obligations and the threats of stakeholders (who have grown vocal and powerful), most organizations would conveniently do without involving stakeholders in risk related communication. The other dilemma in public participation is presented by the ambiguity of the legislation in defining the nature and the process of stakeholder participation. This has resulted in participation to mean different things to different people and organizations. In the light of all these complexities, risk communicators should consider the following strategies for enhancing stakeholder participation as a risk communicator;
· Ensuring that there is a true organizational commitment to the process before undertaking stakeholder participation.
· Clarifying the scope and purposes of any stakeholder participation (e.g. education, consultation, etc.) to all participants.
· Clarifying whether participants will actually have a voice in the final decision or not.

These are critical because while participatory approaches are aimed at involving stakeholders, there are many different forms and models of public participation. The various types identified are tabulated in Table 17.1 with their respective advantages and disadvantages. Pimbert & Pretty (1995) viewed participatory approaches to be a continuum ranging from a limited input in decision making and control by stakeholders (passive participation) to extensive input into decision making and control (active participation). The authors identify seven levels of participation, being;

1. Passive participation – stakeholders simply informed of what is going to happen or already happened. Common in top-down approaches. (Relevant during care and crisis?)
2. Participation in information giving – stakeholders participate by answering questions but not able to influence analysis or use. (Relevant in risk assessment?)
3. Participation by consultation – stakeholders’ views recognized though may not necessarily influence decision making. (Relevant in consensus?)
4. Participation for material incentives – stakeholders participate by providing certain resources.
5. Functional participation - stakeholders form groups to meet predetermined objectives. Involvement does not tend to be at early stages of project cycles or planning, but rather after major decisions have been made. (Care and consensus?)
6. Interactive participation – Joint analysis and action. People have stake in maintaining or changing practices. (risk management interactions?)
7. Self mobilization – stakeholders takes decisions independent of external organizations.

In line with the core values set by the International Association for Public Participation, (http://www.iap2.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=4), it appears that only interactive participation can fit into the seven core values that guide public participation.

Chapter 8 – Analyze Your Audience

Don't wonder about what the microwave is doing here. Read to find out!

The main emphasis of this chapter is the need for knowing your audience when managing or communicating risk or crisis. Audience analysis is an important part of risk and crisis communication and the audience should be an important part of the decision making process starting from message creation to which medium will be used to communicate.

Begin with purpose and objectives
The authors argue that risk and crisis communication should start by understanding why you are communicating and what type of communication you are using. The nature of the situation will help you determine the state of mind of your audience (e.g. are they in panic, do they not know anything about the situation or is this a situation they have been aware of for a along time and they will be hostile).
Also determining who is at risk is also an important beginning point in trying to understand your audience.

Choose a level of analysis
How much you analyze your audience will depend on some factors. These include: funding, time, and the number of staff involved in the situation. Organizational constraints such as approvals are also a factor that affects your audience analysis. Different levels of analysis include: Baseline audience analysis, midline audience analysis, and comprehensive audience analysis.

The authors also list some characteristics of audience analysis. Most of the factors to be analyzed listed there are common sense things that we could all come up with. One factors, however, caught my eye and I realized that I could have missed the importance of that one. Communication interaction and information flow in the community. This analysis includes looking at how your publics interact and change information. I could have easily missed this one but it is really important during the communication process, because how you use communication and which mediums to use will all depend on this factor. If there are certain community leaders that people trust, you would probably try to reach them and maybe even try engaging them in the communication process.

Determine key audience characteristics
This step is important for all kinds of organizations, but it becomes especially important for global and multinational organizations. Understanding people from your own culture can be hard at times, but understanding the audience becomes especially important for big companies that work globally since they have to consider the characteristics of all kinds of different audiences.

Socio-cultural effects on perception of risk and accepting risk are a main factor for risk communications. Two examples that come to mind are from my country, Turkey. The first risk issue is microwave ovens. As popular as these ovens are in the US, most Turkish homes do not own microwave ovens. And whenever the topic comes up, people (even educated people) have this fear of radiation from microwave ovens. People believe that these ovens are really dangerous and that is why they are not common in many homes. It is really hard to understand why, but people have such a belief and company that sells microwave ovens has to consider this misperception.

Another example would be AIDS awareness. There are many organizations that try to inform people about AIDS and try to educate people about unsafe sexual behaviors. Most educated people are aware of the risks. However, it is one section of the society – uneducated males – that does not seem to be accepting the reality of the risk, and even argue that they are immune to the risk by saying that: “We are Turks, nothing will happen to us”. I think certain demographics may be hard to communicate to and educate about risk, and this becomes a major challenge for global companies or organizations where they are trying to communicate with many different types of people with very different perceptions of risk.

Audience Analysis (Chapter 8)

From the previous readings in this book, we all know that understanding the audience is the key to effective risk communication. Chapter 8 emphasizes this point by discussing the levels of analysis, audience characteristics, sources of analysis data, and how to incorporate that data into the communication effort. The chapter has several excellent tables that provide additional information to help communicators go from what questions to ask of the audience, to transforming the answers into messages. The chapter concludes with an audience analysis checklist that communicators should follow when planning this crucial stage in the campaign process.

Audience analysis begins with the purpose and objective of the risk communication campaign. Determining if you are conducting care, consensus, or crisis communication will provide a basic idea of the audience analysis questions that need to be answered.

Audience analysis can fall into three levels:
Baseline – basic information about audience’s literacy level, preferred methods of communication and hostility toward the communicating organization. This level is usually needed for any risk communication campaign, but it may be all that is necessary in a crisis situation.
Midline – includes the baseline information plus demographic, socioeconomic, and cultural factors (i.e. age, gender, income, occupations, etc.). Care communication usually requires this level of analysis.
Comprehensive – includes both the baseline and midline information then expands to include psychological factors (i.e. motivations and mental models). Comprehensive audience analysis is necessary when the purpose of care or consensus communication is to change behavior.

The book mentions the EPA’s guide for conducting audience analysis: Community Culture and the Environment: A Guide to Understanding a Sense of Place (EPA, 2002). This document is available in pdf form by clicking here. This is a useful tool for organizations that need a model to begin conducting audience analysis.

Conducting an audience analysis can be very difficult, time-consuming and expensive. Direct methods of analysis (i.e. interviewing audience members, conducting focus groups, etc.) are always preferred to indirect methods (i.e. using existing sources of information).

In situations where collecting information from the targeted communities would be extremely difficult or impossible, the authors suggest using a surrogate audience. This surrogate audience is easier to access, but seems representative of the audience attempting to be reached. I think using this technique could potentially create problems. In order to utilize a surrogate audience, certain assumptions would need to be made about the target audience. If these assumptions are wrong, the collected data could be useless. Other forms of indirect analysis would be more accurate such as using census data, community development organizations, local media advertising profiles, or information from market polls such as Gallup or Harris. What are the best methods to conduct audience analyses? What other factors should be considered?

My final issue is whether audience analysis and follow-up evaluation are given enough importance in the planning stages of a risk communication campaign. It seems that these two elements need to be emphasized when planning a budget and scheduling the campaign. What other steps need to implemented in the beginning stages of a campaign to guarantee its success?

Chapter 17: Stakeholder Participation

Right off the bat, I was intrigued that the authors told us that the least effective form of stakeholder participation was the public forum/meeting (p. 333). I understand why they are used so often to measure public opinion: it’s easy and it makes the org. feel like action has been taken – even if the representation at the meetings is skewed.

It is reminiscent of organization’s dependency on clips for PR to show results. It doesn’t really prove anything or show that something actually got done, but it does show that something is happening. I agree completely with the theme of this chapter. An organization needs to really empower their stakeholders. You can’t expect to be respected by someone that doesn’t feel they respect you.

Throughout the chapter it was evident that both authors had worked numerous times with stakeholders. Just like you and I are people with things to do, it is important not to be wasting our stakeholders’ time with frilly pointless meetings. While this public may not be a vast public, the line must be drawn between the stakeholder’s time and what we talked about in our class on the 23^rd, which was if there is no new information, give educate them further.

I was impressed that the authors were able to compile such a large number suggestions that could obviously help organizations. They really sifted through the “Shouldn’t this be obvious?” box to come up with a number of practical suggestions that are often overlooked and absolutely need to be understood by an organization before attempting to reach out to stakeholders. It’s easy for an organization to ignore or forget to respect the publics they are attempting to reach.

The forgetfulness can be especially difficult in times of stress for the organization. Just like stress can affect the decision-making of a person. It seems to affect organizations as well and can be especially susceptible to become the greatest constraint to effectively solving anything as discussed in chapter four.

I noticed that the chapter focuses greatly on risk communication with stakeholders and did not really go into whether there is a special way to communicate with key stakeholders in times of crisis. How different is this? The most helpful sections of the chapter were pages 305-6, Table 17-1 (p. 329), and the checklists on pages 330-3. The inclusion of the different types of groups that an organization could expect to have shed new light on different ways of communicating risk.

This chapter reminded me of the issue my campaigns class was asked to address for GRU last semester. In this case it was low-income stakeholders in the utility that were in a state of crisis as a result of increased cost of fuel, home efficiency and a number of other environmental factors that caused their summer bills to skyrocket.

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061103/LOCAL/211030341&SearchID=73270250354780

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061109/EDITORIALS02/61109008&SearchID=73270250354780

The major players were GRU, the City of Gainesville, the ACTION Network (a group of local churches representing the low-income publics), and the low income publics. The forum took place in October of 2005. The public was hostile and their hostility was targeted primarily at GRU for high bills. GRU, the city, and the ACTION Network handled it, quite literally, by the book – this book.

This meeting mostly resembled a formal hearing. All the higher-ups from GRU were there, the Mayor Peggy Hanrahan spoke and a number of ACTION Network members were there to discuss what was being done to help the community. All three major players public signed a covenant to do act on the issue and keep it at the forefront of their agendas. Additionally, they publicly agreed to reconvene in April of 2007 to determine progress that has been made. Finally, there was a question answer portion in the forum, as well, where the public was invited to briefly address the three groups. GRU took this as an opportunity to continue discussing what could be done to make the home as efficient as possible and offered bags of tips and other useful tools for improving home efficiency, including a DVD and strips of insulation to be used for cracks in windows, doors, and wall outlets/switches.

After reading this chapter, I thought it to be an excellent example of including and respecting the opinions of the stakeholders, while at the same time educating them. They publicly committed to the task of improving the crisis at hand and even skeptics were somewhat quieted by this. If GRU and the city pulls through in April, a public that has felt largely ignored by both will have felt heard and their opinions considered.

January 30: L&M Chapter 7

Be prepared! Planning a risk communication effort requires:
determine purpose and objective
analyze audience(s)
develop message(s)
determine method
set schedule
assemble elements into comprehensive plan

L & M chapters 7-12 deals with each of these components separately under the umbrella “Planning the Risk Communication Effort”

Chapter 7 – Determine Purpose and Objectives (pretty short chapter; you could read it in the time it takes you to read this)

Purpose - Why communicate?
Objective(s) – specific measurable details to be accomplished

Lookout! While purpose and objectives may seem obvious, legal issues, organizational requirements, the risk itself and audience requirements will affect your communication efforts

Legal – Depending on the issue, your organization’s efforts may be subject to state and federal guidelines

Organizational – Make sure your efforts coincide with and are not contradictory to the organization’s mission

Risk – Is risk: care, consensus, or crisis?
care – risk is known: efforts should focus on changing behavior
consensus – perceptions abound. Efforts should bridge information gaps between organization and audiences(s) so a mutual decision regarding risk can be arrived at
crisis – risk is now crisis event. Efforts should communicate specific danger and provide alternatives to minimize risk
condition – is risk new or old?
new/highly visible? Fear, hostility, other emotional reactions from audience(s) may be factors
new/little known? May need to raise awareness
old/highly visible? Audience apathy may be factor. Build on audience interest
old/little known? No explanation from L&M here. I think they just needed a fourth box for their diagram
audience needs – Know your audience and craft your communication efforts according to care, consensus, or crisis guidelines
mic brookshire

Chapter 3. Laws That Mandate Risk Communication

This chapter describes highlights of some of the major federal laws within the United States. Areas of laws that risk communication is mandated vary from CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) to the Privacy Rule. These laws and regulations listed in this text can be largely divided into two in terms of the purpose of regulations: laws that are required in order for an organization to effectively communicate with its public and facilitate public involvement; laws that are required in order to safeguard publics from harms that can be caused by the inappropriate process of risk communication. The Privacy Rule (p. 42) is one of the latter.

Most of the laws include provisions such as “release information/ documents for public comment” or “hold public meetings to collect comments.” The common concept of the requirements seems to be that they encourage government agencies and organizations to actively and effectively engage in communication with the public. This common concept further explains why the two terms, “risk communication” and “public involvement”, are used interchangeably in this textbook and many of the regulations.

Although many organizations and communication professionals have realized the importance of understanding the laws and regulations, it may not be easy to find the laws and regulations that are applicable specifically to the topics of their risk communication activities. The Table 3-1 shows applicable laws and regulations in various cases of risk communication (p. 44). Although the table provides merely a rough guide to find the appropriate authorities, it may be a good starting point of searching in advance of a risk communication effort.

The purpose of the mandatory requirement can also be understood as an effort to minimize the constraints that can hinder in the process of effective risk communication. Laws and regulations mandate a series of activities, such as producing accurate and precise information, making it readily available to publics for transparency and facilitating meeting for comments and involvement. Such regulatory support will help to reduce those constraints both on the communicator and from the audience, as mentioned in Chapter 4, to some extent.

Of course, the laws that mandate risk communication should be understood as a bottom line which is the minimal standards that should be lived up to. Government agencies and organizations would have to make further efforts to fully execute effective risk communication. As mentioned in the very beginning of the chapter, however, risk communication is often conducted merely as a result of a law, regulation, or other government inducement. It is critical to effective risk communication that the management level in an organization is aware of the value of risk communication to their business. Risk communication should be understood as one of the key elements of corporate sustainability management.

Chapter 5 reaction blog

Ethical Issues

I have to say, when I said I’ll do chapter 5 for our weekly reaction blog, my initial thoughts were “Here we go again.” Public relations and ethics just can’t get enough of each other!

Lundgren and Mcmakin start of the chapter by expressing the difficulties of addressing ethics because this is a rather subjective matter. According to the book,“ethics is a philosophical study with its own language and concepts"(p.73). This is only too true since I myself experienced communication difficulties when I first came to the states. I was taught that it was rude to look at somebody directly in the eyes.“What are you hiding from me?”was the response I got in the states when I avoided direct eye contact.

The book categorizes ethics in three different areas: Social, organizational, and personal ethics. Basically, social ethics is the society's judgment of our behaviors (p.74). It determines how risk is communicated according to“changing societal demands"(p.74). The Sociopolitical Environments Influence addresses how the society views risk and how risk decisions are made. This goes further to explore the changes of public demands on the depth of involvement during a risk decision process. Another ethical issue discussed will be the decision of a risk situation and to whom the risk will be communicated. There are different stages when audience concerns can be factored into risk communication efforts, and those who communicate to the audience must know who they are communicating to and what and how much information is needed to the audience. Table 5-2 in the chapter describes different stages of risk communication and analyzes each advantages/disadvantages of audience concerns during those stages. In most cases, it is better to communicate during the initial stage before rumors build up. It becomes difficult to“justify”the risk as time goes by.

Another issue is the Fairness of the Risk. This was new for me, and I found it very interesting that“environment equity"(p.80)is a variable considered for dealing with risk. It makes perfect sense after the reading that the anger level and hostility elevates when the audience perceives that the risk is dealt unequally among ethnicity. Hurricane Katrina dealt with this issue, and it is still facing beliefs that the crisis had much to do with race and poverty. Consequences of Multiple Meanings and The Issue of Stigma each explain ethical problems when the messages are misunderstood and how stigma can impact communication during risk situations.

Organizational ethics is what I personally think public relations practitioners struggle with the most. First of all, there’s Legitimacy of Representation. This determines who should be the spokesperson and if that spokesperson appropriately represents the risk, and whether “the information represented actually represents the risk” (p. 83). It is important that the selected spokesperson meets the expectations of the audience, but seldom does one representative encompass all aspects of an audience. Designation of Primary Audience is, as it speaks, to determine who is of most importance in risk communication process. Certain factors are considered in this process, but determining who is more or less important during a risk situation seems unethical itself to me. Releasing Information deals with when and how much information should be released during risk communication. Many times, information released during risk situations are confidential, so naturally, the organizations are reluctant to release much of this piece. Audience, on the other hand, want as much as possible and thus rises an ethical issue.

Personal ethics is perhaps the most controversial factor within the areas of ethics. This mainly deals with what you think is right. In other words, if you believe something is ethical, organizational and social levels may not be much of a concern. Using Persuasion describes how risk information is presented and whether this is ethical or not. Persuasion is an intentional communication method to“force an opinion on the audience”(p.89). Whether it is ethical to build a tendency of an issue is debatable, but I personally think persuasion is inevitable during the process of risk communication. Let alone risk situation, persuasion occurs on daily bases, and it is nonsense to automatically reflect persuasion as a manipulative communication method. Every communication process is an exchange of meaning, a method to build shared consensus and develop understandings. This in nature involves the exchange of various thoughts and beliefs, and this is persuasion. The intention of persuasion is what should be more considered, not the happening itself. The Role of the Communicator illustrates what roles“you”should play during the risk situation. This returns to the importance of personal ethics since what you believe will affect what you do during the communication process. When your personal beliefs conflict with what the organizational ethics, an ethical dilemma rises. Whether the organization wants you to cover up risk information, or set you a vague line of ethical codes, it is difficult to act up in contradicting situations.

Is there even a conclusion for ethics, especially in pr? I can’t help but go back to the“subjective morals”dilemma. L&M also note that these are only “few of the ethical issues” communicators of risk situations deal with. Like their advice, do be aware of these issues and additional factors as well. As a closing comment, all I can hope for is “world peace” in order to resolve ethical issues.

Case study response

The cases outlined in US&S chapter 6 were an excellent primer on the “dos and don’ts” of crisis response in the food industry and it’s obvious that lessons learned from these experiences are still being used today.

The very nature of the food industry should automatically mandate a higher level of crisis planning and preparedness. Restaurants and food suppliers should exceed every standard required for safety and cleanliness in order to minimize the risk as much as possible. The public places their trust in the food industry, trust which is hard to regain.

I was surprised by Jack-in-the-Box’s initial reaction to the E.coli scare in 1992. Given the severity of the illnesses, I would have expected a more swift and decisive response, rather than the “wait and see approach” that was used. I understand that they were waiting for an official statement before taking any action, but their delay possibly resulted in more people getting sick, and also hurt their crisis communication efforts. When they were found to be at fault, they finally took the step of recalling all of the beef from the shipment determined to be the source of the infection, calling the move “an extraordinary step” (p.86)..

Their crisis communication strategy did fall mostly in line with Benoit’s image restoration typology, in which a company’s public response goes through the following cycle: denial, evading responsibility, reducing offensiveness, corrective action, and mortification.
-Denial: they acknowledged the crisis existed, but denied responsibility, stating that “it is unclear as to the source of an illness linked to undercooked beef” (p.85)
-Evading responsibility: they were critical of their meat supplier and of government agencies charged with inspecting the meat prior to sale, and denied any knowledge of the change in grill temperatures that could have averted the crisis.
-Reducing offensiveness: they tried to insist that its grills were “operating at a temperature that met a lower national standard”; yet this didn’t solve anything, as obviously their cooking procedures weren’t sufficient to eradicate the E.coli since over 400 people got sick.
-Corrective action/mortification: their decision to finally recall the infected beef came after a considerable number of people had already been sickened, so it wasn’t as effective as an immediate recall would have been. However, the CEO publicly addressed their denial of receiving the updated grill procedures, saying that they had located it in their files after all. In addition, they completely revamped their organizational communication and public relations procedures in order to keep more control over their documentation and in-store policies. Finally, Jack in the Box “closely scrutinizes all the beef it purchases and maintains grill temperatures in excess of the highest standards” (p.87).

Luckily, the approach today seems to be the opposite: as with the recent E.coli scare with spinach, many retailers pulled spinach completely from their shelves and menus even before the exact cause of the outbreak was determined. While this also resulted in lost income, the proactive nature of their action helped keep the public’s trust intact, seeing that the industry had the customer’s best interests at heart.

This is also the way Chi-Chi’s and Schwan’s chose to deal with their respective crisis situations, immediately taking corrective action to deal with the situation at hand. In Chi-Chi’s case, their crisis response strategy was well-intentioned, but their organizational and financial position wasn’t strong enough to support their plan to the fullest extent.

Schwan’s also chose this route, pulling their products from the shelves even before they were found to be the cause of the salmonella outbreak. They had the advantage of a face-to-face distribution process, so they could apologize personally to customers, as well as distribute refunds and collect recalled product. In addition, they set up a hotline and offered to reimburse customers for medical testing to determine if they’d contracted salmonella. Their commitment to customer service (and the complete support of their company president) allowed them to survive the crisis relatively unscathed.

Risk/Crisis Communication

Chapter 3 - Laws that Mandate...

This reading was another solid general information piece that I’m sure I will have to deal with some day. I read it as more of a preparatory guide on what we may have to deal with because a number of the examples came with the caveat that on needs to check with state, local and organization rulings on how these rules and acts on the organizations communication.

I appreciated the inclusion of the timeline example (3.1) because it conveyed the complexity of a communications campaign that has to deal with possibly unpleasant issues. A lot of discussion and communication with the community is obviously needed.

It brings to mind the difficult issues surrounding the clean-up of the Koppers Superfund site (Koppers site) that was in the news in the fall of last year. Besides the U.S. Government, it centers on a chemical used in treating lumber that has contaminated the groundwater at 75 times the level accepted by state regulations. GRU brought the issue to light when some monitoring wells were drilled and have called upon Beazer East, which briefly owned the site and is responsible for clean-up.

The rat’s nest I see is that one side is stating that there is no evidence that the pollution is moving towards GRUs wells and that action would be premature, but GRU and others state that there is good evidence that the contamination is moving.

I was a little surprised when the diagram explained that the process could take up to eight years. If you’re on the communications team, that’s some pretty good job security. This one actually began in 1983 (yes, more than 20 years ago). The ROD was signed in 1990, there was a five year review in 2000, and the issue is still, amazingly, in the news as of 2006.

The readings didn’t prepare me for this, and I’m thankful that I was not working for Beazer East in the last 20 years. What I did appreciate about the readings is how much they helped me understand a lot of the terminology, documents and how they were used as I researched this issue more closely. It involves CERCLA, the ROD, and all the documents are available online at epa.gov.

I especially appreciated the terminology. I will be much more aware of it when I hear it outside of the classroom. I was surprised they didn’t cover HIPAA at all, which everyone that works in a healthcare. It is something that applies to so many people and can have dire consequences if ignored or overlooked.

To switch gears, the largest crises are those that affect the greatest number of people. No wonder there is such a tangled mess of laws that pertain to the environment. While I hadn’t considered it before, chapter three clarified another way that a practitioner needs to know their organization “inside and out.” All orgs. need a communication plan and a crisis plan in place, but for anyone that is involved in communications especially, the applicability of the law falls directly on them as the spokesperson for the company.

It could take years to understand all the laws that affect an organization. It’s worth it, though, if it keeps the organization out of years litigation.

Ch. 2: Lessons on Managing Crisis Uncertainty

Ch. 2: Lessons on Managing Crisis Uncertainty

-Effective Crisis Communication

The goal of Chapter 2 “is to provide some constructive advice on how to communicate in the presence of uncertainity” (pg. 17). The chapter goes on to outline 10 lessons for managing the ambiguity of crisis communication. A summary of the lessons can be found on page 30.

1. Organization members must accept that a crisis can start quickly and unexpectedly.

This sounded pretty basic to me...It’s common sense. The example used in the text was about a fire starting in a Malden Mills textile plant. Some of the company executives learned about the fire through CNN before they were notified by company representatives. Another example of crisis beginning quickly and unexpectedly is the crash of Value Jet Flight 592 in 1996.

2. Organizations should not respond to crisis with routine solutions.

For example, Exxon used its standard oil spill response plan after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound in 1987. But Prince William Sound was a unique environment, and the usual clean-up response was not adequate for the size and location of the spill. The recovery was handled poorly, and the company’s reputation suffered because they utilized a one-size-fits-all crisis response plan.

3. Threat is perceptual.

I thought the example for this lesson, about the Y2K threat, was a bit weak. The lesson says that organizations need to develop rapport and consensus with their stakeholders about threats because “communication about potential threats helps reduce uncertainty about potential risks in the organization” (pg. 20). Basically, being open with stakeholders about the “what-if” scenarios will help reassure stakeholders that the organization is prepared for whatever happens.

4. Crisis communicators must communicate early and often following a crisis, regardless of whether or not they have critical information about the crisis.

After disaster strikes, “the public” (stakeholders, employees, victims, relatives of victims, etc) want to know what happened, why, who was affected, who was responsible, etc. Organizations need to be prepared to answer questions to reassure the public. The organization may not have much accurate, verified information available yet, but they need to have a presence and discuss what they are able to.

5. Organizations should not purposely heighten the ambiguity of a crisis to deceive or distract the public.

Communication ambiguity- multiple interpretations of an event (pg. 24)

The text explains that “ambiguity is ethical when it contributes to the complete understanding of an issue by posing alternative views that are based on complete and unbiased information that aims to inform. Ambiguity is unethical if it poses alternative interpretations using biased or incomplete information that aims to deceive.”

6. Be prepared to defend your interpretation of the evidence surrounding a crisis.

There are several areas of ambiguity that may result in further questioning and interpretation from other stakeholders in a crisis situation.

Questions of evidence- “whose scientific evidence should the public believe? (p.25)”

Questions of intent- “did the organization knowingly commit the crime? (p. 25)”

Questions of responsibility- “did the crisis originate within or outside of the organization? (p.25).

7. Without good intentions prior to a crisis, recovery is difficult or impossible.

If an organization intentionally deceives the public about the risks or potential problems associated with its product, it will be very difficult for the organization to regain public trust once the problems surface.

8. If you believe you are not responsible for a crisis, you need to build a case for who is responsible and why.

As an organization, you cannot merely point a finger at the party responsible for the crisis at hand. If you are going to make accusations and place blame you must have evidence supporting your conclusions. Making claims that your organization is not responsible for the problem, but you don’t know who is responsible also makes the company look foolish.

9. Organizations need to prepare for uncertainty through simulation and training.

We’ve been taught this lesson since we were children. Fire drills at school are one example of this, as is the childhood lesson “stop, drop, and roll.” Preparing for the unexpected ensures that we are better able to handle crisis when they do occur because we practiced how to manage the situation. Simulations and training exercises allow us to work out the kinks in our crisis plans before we are forced to put them into action.

10. Crisis challenge the way organizations think about and conduct their business.

The example used in the book is that in a post 9-11 world, we look at the security of airliner cockpits and security screening in a way much different that we did before the World Trade Center was hit.

While some of the lessons were common sense, they helped outline how to manage the uncertainty that often plagues crisis situations. When left unmanaged, uncertainness has the potential to be more damaging that the actual crisis itself. After reading these lessons, I’m curious to hear more examples of situations in which organizations successfully managed uncertainty.

Reactions this week

Every day, when people watch TV news or read newspapers, all kinds of crisis events bomb their daily life. Crises range from fraudulent practices in financial industry, e.g. Enron’s collapse to product recalls and food-borne diseases. Right after the breakout of a crisis, press conferences are usually held to announce an official statement explaining five elements of the event- what, who, when, why, where and how to the involved stakeholders. We all know organizations need to communicate “something” immediately. However, for organizations experiencing crisis situations, they also face tremendous constraints such as lack of knowledge about the cause and effect, unavailability of accurate and appropriate information and so on. Therefore, the three chapters offer some basic attitudes to deal with this stressful process.

Key point: time, content and evidence

“Crisis communication must communicate early and often following a crisis, regarding of whether or not they have critical information about the crisis.” (Ulmer et al., 2006, p. 21).

When it comes to releasing information, the key responsibility of a communication specialist is to catch the timing, find sufficient evidence to support the statement and suggest decisions regarding what to do next. In the meantime, information organizations are willing to release is so limited that it contradicts what the publics want to know. One chapter suggested “audiences generally want as much information as they can get as early in the process as possible. However, organizations often release as little as possible as late as possible, for several good reasons” (Lundgren & McMakin, 2004, p. 86). As a communication practitioners working in a given organization, how do you strike the balance between the two parties? Should you play a follower role or an activist role in the crisis situation? Besides, if the organization doesn’t have sufficient data at hand, to what extent do they need to release information? If they shift the blame to others first and are found inconsistent according the following evidence, will the publics forgive the fault they made? They probably won’t.

Moreover, in p. 87, the authors raised another interesting question regarding the issue of censorship. Should an organization limit the amount of information or would this limitation be a form of censorship? For freedom of speech, we have a formal regulation to follow. In terms of crisis communication, organizations possess the final power to decide what to say and how to say. Do PR people have the power to decide what to say and how to say? In chapter three, we learned laws that mandate risk communication. Under the law regulation, basic rights of publics are protected. However, we still can see some organizations respond to the press and whole society in a passive and dishonest manner in various crisis situations. For organizations, would PR professionals play a necessary evil role that pushes organizations to tell the truth and face the problems? In a company that acts in a social responsible way, managers will appreciate proactive ways to deal with crises. On the other hand, PR people may risk losing their jobs by insisting on own opinions especially in the crisis situation.

Crisis is another opportunity

Despite the tremendous stress communication professionals are facing, we all need to keep in mind the positive side is to transform the constraints of uncertainty into opportunities.

What an organization deals with an ongoing crisis has significant impacts on building excellent performance history and corporate credibility.

Uncertainty-Reaction paper #2

Life itself is full of uncertainty. Kramer (2004) suggests, “We may experience uncertainty due to lack of information, due to the complexity of the information, or due to questions about the quality of the information” (pp. 8-9). His approach to uncertainty is focused on the availability of the information.
According to Ulmer, Sellnow, and Seeger (2007), ethical and unethical ambiguity are defined as follows.
Ambiguity is ethical when it contributes to the complete understanding of an issue by posing alternative views that are based on complete and unbiased data that aim to inform. Ambiguity is unethical if it poses alternative interpretations using biased or incomplete information that aims to deceive. (p. 24)
Above definitions whether the ambiguity in crisis situations is ethical or unethical are also closely related to the possibility of acquiring the complete and objective data.
Complete data decide the public’s trust in crisis situation. This is the reason of the importance of complete data in crisis. The following example in Korea shows how the trustful information moves public’s mind in crisis.
In February 2004, Dr. Woosuk Hwang, a South Korean veterinary medical researcher and professor at Seoul National University, began receiving his country’s attention and adulation. He became an international celebrity when he announced in the leading scientific journal, Science, that he had cloned human embryos. However, on November 22, 2005, PD Notebook, an investigative documentary program on South Korea’s Munhwa Broadcasting Company (MBC), one of the nation’s three major broadcasters, exposed the egg sale, which was unknown and unethical, for the first time. On December 4, YTN, an all-news cable channel, revealed an interview with the feeder cell expert, Sonjong Kim, one of Hwang’s former colleagues. Kim claimed that MBC coerced him into providing information revealing that Hwang’s stem cell exploits were fraudulent. That night, MBC’s main news program, News Desk 9, apologized for the unethical conduct of the producers of PD Notebook. It admitted that the producers of that program used coercion, manipulation, and hidden cameras in order to secure recorded interviews unfavorable to Dr. Hwang. Angered by MBC’s immoral coverage of the issue, about 12,000 South Korean netizens signed an Internet petition calling for the shutdown of the broadcasting company. This was a considerable crisis for MBC. On December 7, MBC decided to put the production of PD Notebook on indefinite hold. At this point, public’s trust in Dr. Hwang was still very strong.
During this chaotic period, on December 15 MBC’s PD Notebook aired a follow-up program questioning the authenticity of Dr. Hwang’s research. The producer uncovered that the DNA of several stem cells received from Hwang’s team did not match those of the individual patients from whom they were supposedly derived. On January 10, 2006, according to a report released by a Seoul National University panel investigating his work, Dr. Hwang’s stem cell study was revealed to be a fabrication. On March 6, Dr. Hwang confessed that he had instructed the researchers to fabricate the medical treatment related to the article published in Science.
In the above case, public’s trust started from the respect for Dr. Hwang because of his research in the journal, Science. In the mean time, public did not trust PD Notebook’s investigation about Dr. Hwang’s research because public did not regard the broadcasting program is professional in figuring out the truthfulness about the scientific research. However, eventually, a report released by a Seoul National University panel also revealed that his research is a fabrication, and South Korea’s national pride for Dr. Hwang turned into anger and embarrassment because of his fabricated research. In this crisis case, the complete and trustful data played the most significant role in moving public’s evaluation or judge.

Chapter 3 - Laws and Regulations

There are many laws and regulations for risk communication that public relations practitioners need to know. Failure to follow the laws and regulations may result in audience members taking legal action against an organization, loss of funding and an organization being forced to shut down (Lundgren and McMakin, p. 29-30). These laws and regulations cover anything from how to deal with chemical leaks to how to make decisions about how to clean up inactive waste sights. There are also laws and regulations about workplace safety and privacy in health communication. Some laws even require organizations to have plans on hand in case of a crisis.

The summary of chapter three says “Check with federal agencies, state agencies, local governments, and your organization before beginning a risk communication effort to ensure that you understand and are in compliance with the requirements (Lundgren and McMakin, p. 43).” After reading this chapter, I felt overwhelmed with rules and regulations and I can just imagine how a public relations practitioner feels. All of the laws and regulations seem necessary, but is there a point when there are too many laws and regulations? Is there a point when the threat of legal action creates more problems than it solves?

If I were a public relations practitioner working for an organization that had to follow all of these laws and regulations, I would feel very overwhelmed and confused of how to start putting together a crisis plan. I know that the laws and regulations are for people’s protection, but when there are so many to follow, how can a practitioner know where to start when putting together a crisis plan? There are so many agencies to contact and if a practitioner is working for an organization with limited public relations funds, they have many other things to be working on in addition to a crisis plan.

I guess that I am confused as to what to decide about the laws and regulations that I read about. I know they are all important and have been developed over time in response to things that have happened and harmed people, but at the same time, the list is very long and requires time to understand what is required by each law and regulation. The chart at the end of the chapter was helpful in understanding what is required and when and makes the list of laws and regulations more manageable.

I think the best thing for practitioners to do, when faced with having to comply with multiple laws and regulations, is to sit down and spend a significant chunk of time, such as a work day, understanding what is required by each law and regulation. Once a practitioner has done that, they will know what they need for their crisis plan, so they can start putting it together. The task of putting together a crisis plan while complying with the laws and regulations should be broken up into smaller steps so that it does not seem so overwhelming.

Risk/Crisis Communication

Ethics

There wasn’t much discussion about ethics in chapter five. While social, organizational, and personal ethics distinct, they are all interrelated. Organizational ethics is meant to set standards of professional behavior. It behooves communications professionals to be familiar with requirements of their professional codes of ethics, in addition to others which may apply to them, e.g. public relations practitioners working in the financial sector must pay attention to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and comply with its standards of financial reporting and gift-giving.

I agree with the exceptions to the use of persuasion during risk communication made on page 90 of L&M. Just like risk communication, public relations frowns on the use of persuasion, one-way asymmetrical communications model, by practitioners. In the excellence study, J. Grunig, (1993) indicates that two-way symmetrical communication should be the ideal communication model used by public relations practitioners to achieve excellence. This model is alluded to on page 89 when the authors indicate that “[a]s with many of the ethical questions faced by communicators, the issue is to balance the needs of the organization with those of the audience.”

As noted in chapter two, difficult review and approval procedures are constraints to effective risk communication. “If the organization has a policy that is too limited for audience and risk assessment purposes (for example, a policy that only the final version of documents are kept), those who are communicating risk may need to work to advocate a change in policy” (p. 88). One solution to this problem is the inclusion of communication practitioners into the dominant coalition. This way they are able to secure adequate funding and effectively communicate the importance and implications of compliance or non-compliance to senior management.

One of the roles of public relations practitioners is to conduct environmental scans. Environmental scanning helps practitioners identify key publics that are of importance to the organization for the purpose of proactively identifying and mitigating possible threat to the organization. In this role, practitioners act as the organizations conscience by awakening management to its responsibility and ethical obligations. They save the organization valuable time and resources arising from issues stemming from legitimacy of representation outlined in page 83.

In the absence of legislation protecting whistle-blowers, I am almost certain that the answer to the question “what would you do if your organization asked you to act unethically?” would be a resounding “step down from the work in question” (L&M, p.91). However, it has been observed that there is inconsistency in attitudes and behavior. As noted at the end of chapter 5, the practitioner owes a certain level of loyalty to the organization which issues his/her paycheck; this may make them unwilling to take any action that will compromise their future in the organization.

The authors’ indication of the sociopolitical effects on ethics is similar to situational ethics theory developed by Joseph Fletcher. Situational theory states that “the morality of an act is a function of the state of the system at the time it is performed. That is, situationism was the claim that it is the actual physical, geographical, ecological and infrastructural state one is in, that determines one's actions or range of actions,” as long as an act is justifiable to the actor then he/she has acted ethically. According to this view, ethics is subjective interpretation based on the perception of the rightness of ones actions. And what have we learnt about perception? It is reality.

Ch. 2

Ulmer, Sellnow and Seeger’s second chapter provided suggestions “about how to communicate in the presence of uncertainty” (p. 17). The chapter outlined ten valuable lessons, which are all listed on page 30.

One of the recommendations that I found particularly thought-provoking was as follows: “Crisis communicators must be able to have a clear and consistent message and present this message quickly and regularly following a crisis event. If the organization is not prepared to provide definitive answers and explanations related to the crisis, the spokesperson must be able to provide information such as the organization’s latest safety records, its measures for collecting information about the crisis, and a timeline for how it is going to handle the crisis in the future” (p. 21). I imagine this is assuming all of these things that they are suggesting be released in place of the actual information have already been prepared. If not, I’d think that it’d be inappropriate to start producing that information. One would think that any reputable organization would/should have that information prepared, but I’d imagine that there have been/are organizations that succeed (at least temporarily) without deserving to. Of course, this would probably be a hit (or unveiling) that would irreparably damage the organization’s reputation.

In the section on “Questions of intent,” the account of the Ford Motor Company selling the Pinto, “a car which they knew had life-threatening defects” (p. 26) was shocking to me. What was so surprising was that before reading that section, I had never heard of that information. To me, Ford cars are associated with not being as reliable as Japanese cars, but still being a solid choice among American car companies. However, willingly putting people’s lives at risk is an unforgivable action that I think should carry as much weight as other pieces of notoriety that other companies still carry along with their reputation. I wonder, could Ford’s public relations department have succeeded in burying this violation from their record?

Lesson # 7 stated that “[w]ithout good intentions prior to a crisis, recovery is difficult or impossible.” This led me to think about the Exxon-Valdez case. I particularly wondered, with such arrogance (as has become evident), how is it that Exxon is still so powerful? The only answer that I could come up with is that our dependence on oil is just that great.

Ronnie's Thoughts from Last Week (accidentally deleted)

Every day we are confronted with some type of risk and/or crisis communication and how the communication process is handled clearly alleviates or exasperates the crisis or risk. I had not really given much thought to theories and/or models of crisis communication as outlined in our readings until now.

As a journalist, I was always focused on the information that needed to get out; as a public relations practitioner, I thought more about how the message should be delivered.

For example, 20 years ago, while working as a war correspondent in El Salvador, the capital city came under siege during a guerrilla offensive. This was a crisis for the Salvadoran government and a crisis for the administration of President Ronald Reagan, which backed the Salvadoran military. The U.S. evacuated all non-essential U.S. embassy personnel and their families because of the crisis – but they did not want this information made public. Their party line was that the embassy folk were simply returning to the U.S. for “the holidays.” I reported on the evacuations and was chastised for it by the U.S. ambassador at the time. But as a journalist, I felt obligated (and perhaps a bit righteous) about reporting events in their proper context. The proper context was that the city was under attack and the U.S. wanted to get its people on the ground away from the violence. They just didn’t want the world to see them as running scared.

The prevailing wisdom seemed to be that if you ignored a crisis it would go away. Twenty years later, that may still be the case.

Although it did not have to do with an environmental or health risk (except for the man who was shot), the way the White House handled – or mishandled – Vice President Dick Cheney’s hunting accident is an example of crisis communications at its worst.

Cheney accidentally shot Harry Whittington, a Texas attorney, during a day of hunting on a ranch in Texas. Whittington was shot with birdshot pellets in the face, neck and chest. The accident occurred on Feb. 11, 2006. It was not made public until Feb. 12 – a day later. Cheney himself made no statement about the incident until four days later – on Feb. 15.

Clearly when the vice president of the United States shoots a man – accidentally or not – it constitutes a crisis. Failure to divulge the information immediately made it more of a crisis – in this case of confidence.

The readings also brought to mind the story of Erin Brockovich and the health crisis that confronted the people of Hinckley, CA after their drinking water had been allegedly contaminated by chemicals used by Pacific Gas & Electric. (I just caught a rerun of the movie a few weeks ago!)

Brockovich’s perseverance – or as she calls it on her website – “stick-to-it-iveness” resulted in a $333 million settlement, the largest ever paid in a direct action lawsuit. Brockovich has some words of wisdom for anyone involved in risk or crisis communication:

“It is through awareness and information that we can protect ourselves, our families and our health. It is the absence of knowing information that we become vulnerable and stand defenseless to protect ourselves.” (www.erinbrockovich.com)

I was particularly struck by the L & M readings and the breakdowns as to the different types of risk communication and the different approaches. Care communications would seem to be the model to use when we are aware of a potentially hazardous or troublesome situation and want to take steps if not to head off the risk or crisis, at least to be prepared to handle it. Consensus sounds like a very nice thing – let’s all work together – but in reality, I am not sure how well that can work. Crisis communication in and of itself is probably what we are all most familiar with – certainly it is what grabs the headlines as we witnessed with the recent E-coli outbreaks, the missing children concerns and the still linger effects of Hurricane Katrina.

One quote that really jumped out at me is this:

Where potential personal harm is concerned, the believability of information provided depends greatly on the degree of trust and confidence in the risk communicator. If the communicator is viewed as having a compromised mandate or a lack of competence, credence in information provided tends to be weakened. Or if the risk has been mismanaged or neglected in the past, skepticism and distrust may greet attempts to communicate risks

This underscores the importance of credibility – how important it is to achieve it and how important it is to maintain it – or as Brockovich would say – “deceit becomes one of our biggest challenges and our biggest enemy.” Believe it!

The Ethics Dilemma according to Ronnie Lovler

Who’s right? Who’s wrong?
Seems these days everybody’s talking about ethics, but not as many people are “doing it.”
Every communications field has a code of ethics – Society of Professional Journalists, Public Relations Society of America, National Association of Broadcasters, etc. That sounds well and good, but there are two hitches.
First hitch is that none of these ethical codes are binding and depend on the good will of the organization’s members to adhere to the codes. The second hitch is that membership is any of the professional communications organizations is voluntary – so you can still practice the profession without being a member of the group.
Ethics can be defined as a system of moral principles or rules of conduct that help govern behaviors of individuals and groups. It is also a branch of philosophy dealing with values related to human conduct. And it is something that has been debated for millenniums – and will continue to be debated for centuries to come.
As Chapter 5 in L & M recognizes, ethics are not easy. Ethics are subjective and just because something is an issue for me does not mean it is an issue for you. For example, I am purchasing a “new” pre-used car. I went to look at one car and the seller failed to divulge that the car had been determined to be a lemon. I looked at another car and the seller failed to inform me that the bottom of the car was rusted out and the exhaust system was jerry-rigged. I believe they acted unethically by not providing me all the information I needed to make my decision. They would argue that a used car is a used car and you can’t expect perfection.
There are a lot of (ethical) factors that can be taken into account when communicating risk – or when opting NOT to communicate a risk. Our readings pointed out that the level of public involvement in risk issues has changed so much in the last decades that it is almost unethical not to involve the public and certainly is unethical not to inform the public about a risk.
Here’s something that has troubled me in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina – what I perceive as the insurance companies’ failures to make good to their customers whose homes were damaged and/or destroyed by the storm. The insurance companies claim that the homes were impacted by flood damage – which is NOT covered by policies – rather than wind damage, which would have protected the homeowners’ properties. How ethically did the insurance companies behavior before Katrina and post the storm? How did they communicate risk? How well did they communicate their own responsibility? I was pleased by a recent court ruling in Biloxi, Miss. which awarded a couple $3 million in their suit against State Farm insurance for refusing to pay their Katrina claim. Most of the award was in punitive damages. The insurance industry is railing at the decision, which it considers devastating (for the industry) and perhaps unethical. How much distress might have been avoided for all parties with good, clear, two-way AND ethical risk communications?







Another issue that could be perceived as risk communication in a different light is the flow of information from the White House to the U.S. public around the war in Iraq.
Could the Bush Administration be functioning within the confines of a 1950s mindset by believing that simply informing the public about what was going on is acceptable? Have they not caught up with the times and the ideas of consensus building? Certainly ethics – social, organizational (federal government) and personal are involved here, particularly considering that this issue is costing so many lives and so many dollars.
One other thing I would like to comment on for purposes of this blog is the question of persuasion. I don’t think persuasive tactics are unethical – as long as it is clear that they are being employed. When there is a clear and present danger, obviously persuasive techniques will be used – for example to evacuate people from the path of a hurricane or a river that is about to overflow its banks. Certainly the kind of information presented now about AIDs and steps to take to keep from infecting others or contracting it are good, clear-cut examples of risk information and communication at its finest.