Crisis Communication:
A federal blueprint

by John Rainford

A crisis can make or break a government, an organization or an executive's career. The opinion that crises seem more commonplace is debatable; public expectation of government’s capacity to manage such events, however, is higher than ever. If we’ve learned anything from SARS, BSE, Hurricane Juan and the Ice Storm, it’s that the public communications challenge is the most crucial element of the crisis management response.

This may seem like hyperbole. After all, within any department or agency, communications management is important, but only a complement to the core business of the organization. In crisis or emergency situations, however, the role of communications changes significantly. Disseminating and integrating information – through direction, advice, warnings, intelligence or feedback – is typically the central tool with which a situation is managed and the threat to the community or an individual is minimized. The efficiency of the self-isolation campaign in Toronto during the SARS outbreak is a strong example.

Public communication is often the principal way to share information among affected organizations, and even within organizations struggling to coordinate many groups and activities. It is also critical to building public trust; sustained capacity to manage a crisis depends on sustained credibility in the eyes of the public, stakeholders, partners and opinion leaders.

Easier said than done. The common characteristics of crises – severe threat, extreme time pressure and high uncertainty – provide profound management challenges for public communications. Those challenges include:
• the lack of crisis-specific systems and expertise within some communications shops
• the need to work closely with organizations where relationships may not exist
• the reality and importance of the political role in the public communications function
• how day-to-day communications management systems are likely to collapse under extreme demands.

In May 2004, representatives from the RCMP, Health Canada, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Privy Council Office began work to formalize the Government of Canada’s crisis communications response with the objective of a common management approach to national security events; a common understanding of the players in the communications management process; and a common base standard of crisis communications capacity.

The goal was to foresee the predictable and provide decision makers with practical solutions in response. The result is The Government of Canada Framework for Public Communications Management of National Security Threats, a companion document to Securing an Open Society: Canada’s National Security Policy.

REDEFINING NATIONAL SECURITY
Securing an Open Society, released in April 2004, adopts an integrated approach to crisis and emergency management across government. National security threats are defined as those typically requiring a national response and include terrorist attacks, natural disasters, public health emergencies, border, marine and critical infrastructure security. A key principle underlying the policy is that national security incidents are horizontal and involve multiple federal departments and agencies plus organizations across the public and private sector. Coordination and integration, therefore, is a fundamental challenge.

The Framework recognizes that the first communications challenge will be to ensure strong choices are made. Accordingly, it attempts to manage likely decision-making weaknesses: the decision-making group may fail to consider viable alternative approaches; there may be only passing reference to objectives, and the group may not establish strong contingency plans in the event the initial strategy begins to falter; the communications group may have difficulty obtaining enough information to evaluate options fully; and monitoring systems that allow for adaptation and adjustment over time may be weak. All of these challenges are complicated as a result of the different cultures, perspectives and approaches of the diverse organizations involved.

The Framework sets out a simple four step process consisting of a series of key questions to be considered, discussed and, if possible, answered by the senior communications executives engaged in the management response. These steps, and the questions that comprise them, are distilled onto a small plastic card to be used as a reference guide.

These questions may seem obvious, but even the most straightforward issues, such as whether organizations and individuals have been informed (2.2), can resolve dysfunction early in the response process.

Reminding decision makers of the need to challenge the veracity of information (2.8), for example, or to open communications lines with external partners (2.9) can help overcome chronic decision-making weaknesses that reveal themselves in postmortem after post-mortem.

Subsequent steps focus on the consideration of communications options and, finally, ongoing management issues to ensure managers think through what they have in place within their organizations and whether they need assistance in meeting the government’s expectations.

The make-up of the broad communications management group reflects what tends to form independent of any plan or structure. But it also suggests specific elements that when overlooked weaken the response – for example, a clear ‘seat at the table’ for regional communications players. Additionally, specific reference to links with external partners made by both the political and bureaucratic levels is detailed.

SETTING A FLEXIBLE STANDARD
A key element of the Framework is a set of expected crisis communications capacities to be adopted by the departments and agencies involved in the National Security Policy. The list flows from the stark reality that normal systems of communications management typically break down under the extreme demands and uncertainty in a crisis. A media relations shop used to managing twenty calls a day is now confronting over two hundred.

A message approval process that usually unfolds over several days of review and revision now has hours or even minutes to fill the information vacuum with accurate facts and constructive direction. A strategy group used to coordinating activities and statements with one or two other federal departments is now faced with the need to link with ten other federal spokespersons, three provincial organizations, two international partners and non-governmental and private sector players.

The working group pulled together examples of successful crisis management systems from across the public and private sectors with the aim of compiling a list of core capacities that federal departments and agencies should build and maintain. The list is intended first and foremost to set a new standard across the federal government but it is not intended to be a one-size-fits-all approach.

Organizations are expected to be able to meet this level of competency but can do so in a way that suits their own management approach, internal culture and specific responsibilities. The Framework endorses the need for flexibility to allow different cultures and management models to adapt to the crisis environment as their leaders see fit.

NEXT STEPS
The working group was under no illusions as to the limitations of the Framework or, indeed, any emergency plan. President Eisenhower said, “Plans are nothing, planning is everything.” As a tool within that planning function, however, the Framework is a step in the right direction. It provides a common base for the federal community to work together in managing the crisis and emergency communications challenge, facilitating joint exercises and training. Efforts are underway to ensure the Framework is updated and improved over time.

Although the scope and nature of the crisis communications challenge can be daunting, it is too important to ignore. Expectations of public sector competence are high, suggesting that in addition to the obvious challenge, there exists also opportunity. Crises are times when the importance of strong public institutions is clear. Strong communications management can help ensure that when citizens look to public institutions for leadership, confidence is built rather than eroded.



John Rainford is senior analyst, communications and consultations, for the Privy Council Office. The Government of Canada Framework for Public Communications Management of National Security Threats working group included Inspector Tim Cogan, RCMP, Élaine Chatigny, Health Canada, Jo-Ann Schwartz, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, along with Glenn Chamberlain and John Rainford, Privy Council Office
(jrainford@pco-bcp.gc.ca).