Persistent crisis communications is not a contradiction in terms, writes Nigel Jones.
Traditional approaches to crisis communications envisage a beginning, middle, and end to a crisis. Yet when we look at the information environment today, it seems to be in persistent, technologically enabled crisis: a contested space driven by radicalised ideologues, hacktivists and organised criminals.
Stories in the news show an enduring contest for hearts and minds and information systems, whether in government, corporations or civil society. The technological drivers mean that boundaries between home and abroad, military and civilian, state and non-state actors, work and home, war and peace, crisis and non-crisis are blurred. So is it right to think of a beginning, middle, and end, when digital technologies make us an ‘always-on’ part of the global information space? Shouldn’t we think about effective persistent communications shaping the security environment because social media are changing the way we communicate and relate to our staff, customers and adversaries?
Preparation for crisis communications has normally involved a scenario where an unexpected problem throws the organisation into the limelight. The leadership team rallies its staff and resources to respond as they face a blizzard of negative social media and seemingly hostile press. Preparation for things going wrong is often treated as an administrative issue – who to call when something happens, where to set up a command centre, where to move the staff, how to deal with the backlog. Some thinking has to be done about what might go wrong and how the organisation will respond. It also needs to be exercised and documented. But in the always-on, globalized and contested information environment, being prepared for when things go wrong isn’t enough to operate effectively. It is no longer viable to simply plan and wait.
As a consequence, key questions in managing communications and security in persistently contested environments are:
How are we viewed as a government or company today?
Who is currently attacking our information systems or reputation?
Why do they find us a viable and valuable target?
How do we compare to others in our profile and posture?
What makes us credible as a source of information or trusted services?
How might we be drawn into someone else’s dispute?
And crucially, what is the story that people tell about us?
This last question is often talked about as ‘the narrative’. This is the shorthand way that people make sense of someone or an issue, and fit them into their world view. For some the world makes sense as a place in which people are generally good; for other it’s a dog-eat-dog world, based on their relationships, experiences, and personality. If someone is described as a national treasure or a giant of politics we know the likely narrative that evokes, just as when they are described as Hitler or a Ponzi. The battle of narratives was something that exercised NATO and foreign forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Their complicated stories of international law, missions, coalitions and rights in attempts to explain their deployment never fully countered some of the simple opposing narratives regarding oil, occupation, and neo-imperialism. This unresolved information battle justified and mobilised the actions of those involved in the the enduring crisis.
So what needs to be done in your information environment? Firstly, if the questions above are fundamental in the security and communications posture of your organisation, security staff and advisors need to work closely with, for example, their intelligence, human resources and communications teams to take a holistic view of security and risk. The narrative is more than a brand in a narrow sales and marketing context: it is also about your security relationships and the organisation as a target. Secondly, the team’s joint analysis has to result in a coordinated set of actions that feed into activities across the organisation. In communicating on social media, how does your dialogue situate you as credible, trustworthy, and interested? In your security posture, what does it say about your care for staff or personal data of your clients? How can you make it more likely that those you care about will ‘cut you some slack’ when you are dealing with problems? What is it about your activities that make it more likely that you will attract negative attention?
Today’s world is not about waiting for things going wrong. For many it is a persistently contested information space. How you organise, communicate, and act today is just as important as how you act in a crisis.
About the author
Nigel Jones is a faculty member at the Global Institute of Cyber, Intelligence and Security (GICIS) and director at Accordance Associates.
