Handbook of Corporate Communication and Public ... - Blogs Unpad

e) deployed. In addition, the consequences
of events may call for prolonged responses.
The case where employees have to be
stood down or suppliers have to be turned
away can become a big problem. Planning for
such events will require the deployment of a
lot of information.
The big issues are not from the most highly
protected information. This should already
be backed up and supported offsite. The intellectual
properties and corporate information
will already be well guarded against disaster
(unless this is the crisis you face). The real
problem will be the simple daily routine.
Employee addresses that have been destroyed
or (worse) revealed to the population at large
is not an untypical event. A simple headcount
of employees can become a living hell when a
worried family is uncertain about the safety
of an employee. Inadequate response at such
times can be a reputational disaster as well as
a human (if temporary) tragedy. When such
issues have to be managed, there will need to
be a contingency plan. Using the media to aid
recovery may become an important part of
the practitioner’s job.
Other information, often contact information,
order information and many departmental
plans can be held on intranets or PCs
where it can become inaccessible. Of course,
organizations have backup facilities, but in a
real disaster, it becomes evident where organizational
loopholes leave organizations wrong
footed.
The UK government, faced with a foot-andmouth
disease disaster, was subject to high
levels of criticism for not deploying resources
as proposed in the public inquiry to the 1967
epidemic. In that case, the crisis plan seemed
to be rather dusty.
There is a further problem which is a mismatch
of paper-based and informationera
data management which can leave crisis
management planners re-inventing systems to
manage its crisis. It is important to translate
paper-based crisis management with digital
tools.
In a big crisis, there will be those who will
try to publish everything and those who will
attempt to hush everything up. In addition,
there is a natural desire to express hoped for
outcomes rather than facts. There has to be
fine judgement as to when ‘going public’ will
be the lesser of two evils or even a real advantage.
There is no case for offering anything
but accurate information. The consequential
loss of confidence can be traumatic.
One of the big problems organizations face
under these kinds of pressures is the combination
of creating helpful facilities for the
media (and some other onlookers) and, at the
same time the means for reducing trespass.
Press centres are helpful and should be a place
where all statements are made. It avoids confusion
and ensures that the media is frequently
in one place. It has to be reasonably
comfortable, must have many telephones
and there is a need for a room to hold press
conferences separate from where the media
foregather. In a real crisis, photographers, and
not a few journalists, can be very rough. Some
beefy security is often needed.
There is also a state of mind that allows
some managers to think in terms of turning a
disaster into an advantage. This can be a real
boon. A TV crew in a school temporarily used
for this work can be a story about a company
striving to overcome disaster to the comfort of
employees, community, suppliers and shareholders.
When issues escalate into crisis
In every organization there are incipient disasters
waiting to happen. The practical and
© 2004 Sandra Oliver for editorial matter and selection;
individual chapters, the contributors